- (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the order of the Civil Judge dated 9-9-1955, the award of the Arbitrator dated 20-4-1955, the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 19-3-1955 and the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 31-1-1955 be quashed.
(2.) The petition arises out of proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Petitioners are sons of Harnam Singh. The contesting opposite party is Smt. Bhilwati, widow of one Fateh Singh. Fateh Singh obtained a transfer of the proprietary and sir rights of Smt. Bhuria widow of Shibban who was son of Basti brother of Harnam Singh. Harnam Singh and Basti had equal shares in the Zamindari property in Khewat No. 44 in village Mahawatpur, district Muzaffarnagar. The share of each of them came to 22 bighas 17, 1/3 biswas. Both of them had sir holdings amounting to 25 bighas and odd. Basti died leaving Smt. Bhuria widow of a predeceased son as his heir. Smt. Bhuria transferred her share 22 bighas 17,1/3 biswas in the propritary rights along with the appurtenant sir rights to Fateh Singh as already stated. This transfer was questioned by Harnam Singh by means of a civil suit (Suit No. 1211 of 1931). There was a compromise under which 10 bighas and 12 biswas of proprietary rights were declared to be owned by Harnam Singh and the rest 12 bighas and odd were declared to be the property of Fateh Singh. The shares of the parties in the sir holdings were not mentioned in the compromise and the names of the parties continued to be recorded jointly over the entire sir area.
(3.) When the consolidation proceedings commented in the village Smt. Shilwati, widow of Fateh Singh who seems to have died, made an application under Section 10A of the Act for her share in the sir plots. It may be mentioned that during this interval the ZA and LR Act had come into force and the parties instead of being recorded as sir holders had become bhumidhars of the sir holdings. On this application the sons of Harnam Singh namely the present applicants filed objections. They claimed that they were entitled to a share in the sir according to their share which was recorded in the khewat prior to the coming into force of the ZA and LR Act. The case of Smt. Shilwati was that she was the owner of a half share in the holding. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 31-1-1955 held in favour of the applicant. On appeal by Smt. Shilwati the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by his Order dated 19-3-1955 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and directed him to get the question of shares decided by the arbitrator as provided under Section 12 of the Act. The matter was then referred to the Civil Judge who in his turned referred it. to the arbitrator. The arbitrator by his order dated 20-7-1955 decided that the share of Smt. Shilvati in the holding was half. The applicants filed objections to the award but the objections were dismissed by the Civil Judge and the award was made a rule of the Court. The applicants filed an appeal to the District Judge but the District Judge dismissed the appeal. (It is doubtful whether any appeal lay to the District Judge at all). Then the Consolidation Officer proceeded to partition the property in accordance with the decision of the arbitrator. The applicants pray that the award of the arbitrator, the orders of the Civil Judge, of the Settlement Officer and of the Consolidation Officer may be quashed because of two grounds, firstly, that the decision of the arbitrator was wrong in law and, secondly, that the matter could not be referred to the arbitrator as the dispute about the shares in the holdings did not fall within the purview of Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.;